RE: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Iff you think that this will make a difference then we have all been kidding
ourselves. The evidence is clear, that the BoD never intended the DNSO to
succeed. The members of the IFWP should never have accepted this structure.
But, hindsight is 20/20. The lessons learned were interesting.

It appears that Stef was right (those years ago), the DNSO was only a forum
where the ICANN could harmlessly contain those of us here, whilst parading
us to the DoC as evidence of broad community support and consensus, for
their own different agenda. IOW, we lent the ICANN our credibility whilst we
allowed ICANN to pen us up in a box, like Chinese crickets.

Now, I'm one of the few that realized this upfront, but I didn't want to
commit Patrick Henry's error. Besides, someone had to monitor what was going
on here. Who knows, it might have actually done something.

Barring some rather radical legislation from DC, the ICANN is pretty
harmless. The key to the ICANN web-of-contracts is not to buy into any part
of it in the first place. NewNet is showing us that. Specifically, I don't
believe that it is a binding point, that a contract can specify with whom a
legal entity can have legal business relations, for legally allowed business
transactiuons. The best that can be done is to use it as an escape clause
for contract breach action. Evenso, it may not be binding, under all US law
and jurisdictions. Just because it is written, doesn't mean that it is
legally binding, especially in civil law (IANAL, but why else have
separation clauses in contracts). Of ALL the registrars, some are slutty
enough to take registrations from anyone. When was the last time a registrar
lost their license, or even got suspended?

The only good thing that happened is that new TLDs were introduced and a lot
of D'Crock's crock (FUD) was proven to be disingenuous (Crispin is
irrelevent). More importantly, many are now innoculated against that FUD and
inclusive root operators cannot now be charged with doing something
technically dangerous or legally libelous. Compared to three years ago, this
is a radical improvement in concept and such rhetoric now has very small
chance of being effective. I'll take that as a win for all of us, thank you.


It doesn't matter that some of these ICANN registries have mattresses tied
to their back and are advertising curb-side service (actually, it does, from
another POV<g>). The point being that, new TLDs are now technically and
legally acceptable. It doesn't matter whom is doing them ... or how. Special
imprimature, or dispensation, from theICANN<tm>, not required. All that
remains is for those markets to prove themselves.

The ICANN is now trying to become something it was never intended to be. I
expect that the DoC will not interfere with that, or even pay much
attention. The current US Administration seems to have its hands full with
larger issues. Those of us interested in freedom and individual-rights
should also be expending more effort in that area and a little less on
relative irrelevencies, such as what the ICANN has become or is about to
become.

FWIW, while MHSC attended last years MdR meeting, our business plans have
changed (yet again) and ICANN has become a fading blip on our RADAR screen.
My partners have always questioned my sanity in this endeavour anyway. They
didn't see the ROI. Frankly, I didn't either, but I cared. I can no longer
afford to care and neither can MHSC. I may pop in now and again, but my
primary focus will be elsewhere. MHSC may do something more with DNSO.NET or
it may not. We will see. ROOT-SERVICE.NET will remain in operation, to
support our other activities.

--
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

--
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
|> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 10:06 AM
|> To: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration
|> 
|> 
|> Note:  this draft is being circulated for public comment.  
|> This will not 
|> represent a consensus document from the General Assembly 
|> until its members 
|> have ratified it.  
|> 
|> General Assembly Position Paper on the DNSO:
|> 
|> Members of the General Assembly are committed to the mission 
|> of ICANN and 
|> have actively participated in discussions regarding its future 
|> reorganization.  This involvement has manifested itself 
|> through contributions 
|> to the At-Large Study Committee Forum, dialogue on the 
|> General Assembly 
|> lists, participation in ALSC Outreach sessions, discussion 
|> at plenary 
|> sessions, and involvement in the independent efforts of 
|> groups such as NAIS 
|> and the Interim Coordinating Committee.  
|> 
|> We believe that in view of the clearly-documented community 
|> consensus, the 
|> At-Large Study Committee will re-assess its preliminary 
|> conclusions, and will 
|> re-visit its decision to break our compact with the US 
|> government and elect 
|> less than the requisite number of At-Large Directors promised.  
|> 
|> In principle, we support a reorganization of ICANN along 
|> functional lines, 
|> and see merit in a structure that enables participation for 
|> users, providers, 
|> and developers.  Once the user community is invested with a 
|> participatory 
|> structure and begins the process of electing its nine representative 
|> Directors to the ICANN Board, it will be necessary to assess 
|> the proper 
|> distribution of remaining Board seats.
|> 
|> We agree with the assessment of the ALSC that the ASO and 
|> PSO, in general, 
|> seem to be functioning well, and submit that there would be 
|> no apparent 
|> justification for any changes either in their structure or 
|> in their degree of 
|> representation on the Board.
|> 
|> At issue is the disposition of the three remaining Board 
|> seats.  As we 
|> support the concept of a Supporting Organization for Providers, the 
|> implication is clear - the DNSO, which to date has aptly 
|> been characterized 
|> as dysfunctional, must be decommissioned. 
|> 
|> While it can be expected that those constituencies that have 
|> entered into 
|> contractual relationships with ICANN (the gTLDs, the ccTLDs, and the 
|> registrars), will form the Provider Supporting Organization, 
|> it is evident 
|> that such a restructuring raises questions as to the means 
|> for continued 
|> participation by others that have been loyal to the ICANN mission.
|> 
|> The General Assembly believes than no constituent element in 
|> the ICANN 
|> process should be disenfranchised in this restructuring.  
|> 
|> Accordingly, we propose to the ICANN Board that the concept 
|> of the Open 
|> Public Forum, the General Assembly, wherein all constituent 
|> groups may have a 
|> voice and an opportunity to substantively address mutual 
|> concerns, be 
|> retained.   
|> 
|> The General Assembly will provide a venue for cross-SO 
|> dialogue, thereby 
|> preserving the consensus-building efforts that are the 
|> cornerstone of the 
|> ICANN process.
|> 
|> We encourage the ICANN Board to direct the Names Council to 
|> "wrap up its 
|> affairs" and to pass the mantle of leadership to the General 
|> Assembly.  The 
|> Assembly will facilitate this transition by undertaking 
|> those committee and 
|> task force projects started by the Council, and will bring 
|> them to conclusion 
|> in a thoughtful and timely fashion.  
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
|> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html